Massachusetts lawmakers on Wednesday weighed bills calling for a wide range of parole-eligibility terms for juveniles convicted of first-degree murder, during a hearing that drew victims’ family members who in emotional testimony called for a 35-year term before parole eligibility.The bills vetted by the Judiciary Committee were spurred in part by two court rulings that recently upended sentencing juveniles to life sentences without the possibility of parole. The court rulings were Alabama v. Miller in 2012 at the federal level and Diatchenko v. District Attorney in 2013 at the state level.The state Supreme Judicial Court went further than the federal ruling, saying that life sentences for juvenile murderers violate the state constitutional prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment because there are neurological and psychological differences between juveniles and adults.The move overturned a 1996 statute saying a juvenile 14 years or older and charged with murder can be processed as an adult.Before the committee met to hear the bills on its docket, Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr and victims’ families called for passage of a bill setting a minimum 35-year term before they are eligible for parole. The bill would also set standards for the Parole Board to consider before releasing a juvenile convicted of first-degree murder.The court rulings are retroactive, meaning the juveniles have parole eligibility 15 to 25 years after the conviction, similar to those convicted of second-degree murder, Tarr said.Tarr’s bill (S 2008) has bipartisan support in both chambers, the Gloucester Republican said at a press conference, where he was joined by two dozen family members of victims, Sen. Richard Ross, R-Wrentham, and Rep. Jim Dwyer, D-Woburn. The committee has a reporting deadline of June 30 for the bill.The family members said they were dumbfounded by the court rulings and angry that they may have to attend parole hearings due to their retroactive nature. "This is a shock to our family," said Donna Villaire, a Plymouth resident whose 79-year-old father, Lewis Jennings, was strangled to death in his home by a 17-year-old.Gov. Deval Patrick has filed a bill outlining a 20-year minimum before parole consideration. Speaking with reporters on Wednesday at an unrelated event, Patrick said he is sympathetic to victims’ families, but pointed to the Supreme Court ruling. "Automatic life without parole, as viscerally as any of us many wish it, has been declared unconstitutional," he said.Therefore, those convicted as juveniles need to be eligible for parole, he said. "We have to have a system, where at some point, not that they will get parole, but they are eligible for that consideration," Patrick said.Patrick said it is important to settle on a minimum number of years in order to give the courts some guidance."There is some number in between those two, or that is one of those two, that I think is right," Patrick told reporters.Essex County District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett, testifying in support of Tarr’s juvenile sentencing bill (S 2008), said eligibility for parole after 35 years is "inadequate" but it would provide victims’ families with "some small sense of relief."Sen. Gale Candaras, D-Wilbraham, a member of the Judiciary Committee, pointed to evidence showing that the juvenile brain is not fully formed when compared to an adult’s brain."It’s an evolving science," said Blodgett, who is also president of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association and a member of the board of directors of the Massachusetts Office of Victim Assistance. "But when the decision is based solely on evolving science, I think that’s a very slippery slope."Blodgett said there wasn’t science behind the push for 35 years, but he added that it’s the "right number," because the offenders will be in their 50s and will have an opportunity to have a life, "unlike the people they have murdered."Tarr, who said he heard of evidence that the brain is not fully formed until age 25, added that the 35 years is not science-based but a "value judgment about what’s appropriate."Christopher Markey, House vice-chair of the Judiciary Committee, told Tarr that he has concerns about his bill, which he will bring up with him privately, "but the idea behind it, I understand."Martha Grace, former chief justice of the Juvenile Court, said the neuroscience regarding juvenile brains couldn’t be ignored and argued juvenile murder cases should be transferred to Juvenile Court from Superior Court. "I don’t think it would be right to ignore that kind of research," she said."We’re not talking about people who were in a street fight," responded Rep. Sheila Harrington, R-Groton.Sen. Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, testified in support of her own bill (S 797), which offers a range between 10 years to 20 years, depending on the circumstances. An offender would still face a high hurdle for parole, having to prove that they are mature and fully rehabbed, in addition to admitting guilt and remorse for the crime they committed, she said.But once brain development is complete, she said, "it may be possible for them to be rehabilitated and lead productive lives. We should not be just warehousing them into old age and at tremendous expense."Bob Gittens, a former prosecutor who has served as a Department of Youth Services commissioner and chaired the Parole Board under Gov. Michael Dukakis, called for parole eligibility to be "sooner rather than later.""I’ve seen those individuals who have no understanding or appreciation for the consequences of their behavior," he said, adding that many juvenile offenders had co-defendants, and many of the co-defendants were adults."I saw what happened to people who served 20 years or more," Gittens said. "Those individuals need a tremendous amount of support if and when they are released into the community."Fifteen years is appropriate, he said.The Massachusetts Coalition for Fair Sentencing of Youth is pushing for a parole review after 15 years. Richard Barnum, a child and adolescent psychiatrist who is part of the coalition, said in his testimony that juvenile killers are not common."The [Supreme Judicial Court] decision did not discover a minor leak in the process of sentencing for juvenile homicide," his testimony says. "Instead, it exposed a fundamental flaw in this process, which stemmed from the failure to recognize essential differences between adolescents and adults."As another panel testified — made up of a Barbara Kaban, director of juvenile appeals at the Committee of Public Council Services, and Tina Chery, a longtime anti-violence activist from Dorchester — in support of 15 years, Markey said 15 years could mean an offender could get less prison time than a second-degree murderer or someone guilty of manslaughter."Shouldn’t we start at 25?" he said. "I’m looking at it in a very balanced approach."Joan Cameron’s cousin was murdered at age 14 by a 16-year-old in August 1991."We all know sciences changes," Cameron, who stood with Sen. Tarr before the hearing, told the committee. "‘Don’t eat eggs. Wait a minute, eggs are OK.’""It’s not just that your brain isn’t developed, or we’d all be doing the same thing," she said. "Please take that into consideration when you’re debating these issues."Colleen Quinn contributed reporting.